[deltree7]

OK, a large corporation legal team doesn't understand the nuance of ownership of open-source software.

Do we mock every single open source guy who displays the same amount of cluelessness about the inner workings of a business because I see plenty of that displayed here and everywhere else.

[Mvandenbergh]

Understanding the nuances of ownership and who is responsible for what is quite an important skill for corporate lawyers.

[deltree7]

If you are dealing with 1000s of cases, you can't apply nuances to every single of them.

You are all are supposed to be smart software engineers. Probably know about pre-mature optimization and efficient path.

Here's a secret about communications -- Mass emailing works and is very efficient.

I'm sure you are the same person who rants about a recruiter reaching out to you even though you are the creator of Python.

Reading through everyone's resume and tailoring a message is a waste of time and has the worst ROI for any salesperson.

"But Ha Ha Ha, you guys are clueless about not knowing operational efficiency of an mass communications. Ha Ha Ha"

Yeah, that's exactly how this sounds if the other side mocks HN/Engineers the same way you mock Sales and other "mass-outreach programs"

[Hackbraten]

> Here's a secret about communications -- Mass emailing works and is very efficient.

Especially for the sender.

[josephcsible]

"Don't expect people to do work for you if you're not paying them" is obvious to anyone with a brain. I fail to see how nuance comes into this.

[deltree7]

Nuance is, you don't even know what the end goal of the communication is.

It's as dumb as mocking a scam email/phone call telling "You are so wrong about me". The end goal of the scammer is to make money for the total time he put. Sure, the scammer can go in great detail about your life and tailor the scamming for you, but that's not his best ROI. His best ROI is a generic message sent to everyone.

Oh and "Ha Ha Ha, that you don't know that"

[gautamdivgi]

Ummm... I think the curl license is displayed pretty publicly. So, yes - this email deserves to be mocked roundly.

[deltree7]

and I mock you for being clueless about how mass outreach communications work

[loriverkutya]

Yeah, they get their pay check to understand the nuances :)

[deltree7]

No, they get the paycheck to be effective in their process.

And "Ha Ha Ha You, for not knowing that"

[kube-system]

I am sure their lawyers know exactly how software licenses work.

I also bet that the list of dependencies they used for this mass email was probably not generated by a lawyer.

[NoboruWataya]

Yes, the idea that this company paid a lawyer to go through its tech stack and figure out who owns the code relied upon by the company is fairly ridiculous. Either a lawyer drafted a template email for the company to send to its suppliers, or a lawyer (read: intern) was given a list of suppliers to email on behalf of the company, or a lawyer wasn't involved at all.

But in software communities (and particularly in FOSS communities) tech people can do no wrong; every time a tech company does an aggressive or foolish or otherwise objectionable thing, there must be a dastardly lawyer somewhere pulling the strings.

[deltree7]

Exactly, everything is a Search problem. Most organizations (recruiters, sales) have their own efficient Search algorithms. Unless you know the intricacies of that, you deserve to be mocked for displaying ignorance.

It's as dumb as mocking scammers for their methods. They are effective in their own way. Just because it didn't apply for you, doesn't mean they aren't making money out of this -- which is their ultimate goal. Their goal is not to satisfy your ego and custom tailor a message to you